Share this story

The Pai-led Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in November 2017 to make it much harder for tribal residents to obtain a $25-per-month Lifeline subsidy that reduces the cost of Internet or phone service.

The change didn't take effect because in August 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the FCC decision pending appeal. The same court followed that up on Friday last week with a ruling that reversed the FCC decision and remanded the matter back to the commission for a new rule-making proceeding.

Further Reading

"[S]ince 2000, low-income consumers living on Tribal lands may receive an additional $25 per month for these services through the Tribal Lifeline program in recognition of the additional hurdles to affordable telecommunications service on Tribal lands," the court's decision noted.

The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers—those that build their own networks—making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers. The move would have dramatically limited tribal residents' options for purchasing subsidized service, but the FCC claimed it was necessary in order to encourage carriers to build their own networks.

The same FCC decision also would have eliminated the $25 subsidy in urban areas, reserving it only for tribal lands in rural areas. The court's decision Friday, in response to an appeal filed by tribal organizations and small wireless carriers, overturned both of these limitations.

A three-judge panel said the FCC failed to consider that facilities-based providers have been leaving the Lifeline program and provided no evidence that banning resellers would spur new broadband deployment. The FCC also failed to properly consider how eliminating the subsidy in urban areas would affect consumers, judges determined.

The judges wrote:

For the following reasons, we grant the petitions for review. The Commission's adoption of these two limitations was arbitrary and capricious by not providing a reasoned explanation for its change of policy that is supported by record evidence. In adopting the Tribal Facilities Requirement, the Commission's decision evinces no consideration of the exodus of facilities-based providers from the Tribal Lifeline program. Neither does it point to evidence that banning resellers from the Tribal Lifeline program would promote network buildout. Nor does it analyze the impact of the facilities requirement on Tribal residents who currently rely on wireless resellers. Further, the Commission ignored that its decision is a fundamental change that adversely affects the access and affordability of service for residents of Tribal lands. Similarly, in adopting the Tribal Rural Limitation, the Commission's decision evinces no consideration of the impact on service access and affordability. Its decision does not examine wireless deployment data related to services to which most Tribal Lifeline recipients subscribe.

In addition, the FCC "failed to provide an adequate opportunity for comment on the proposed limitations," judges wrote.

Lifeline is paid for by Americans through fees imposed on phone bills. The $25 subsidy involved in the court case is provided to low-income Tribal residents in addition to the typical Lifeline subsidy of $9.25 per month.

Senator blasts Pai, hails court ruling

The court's decision was released on the same day of oral arguments in the case against the FCC's net neutrality repeal.

We contacted the FCC today and will update this story if we get a response. The FCC could appeal the ruling.

"This is another example of Chairman Pai pushing his own agenda over the obligations he has to the American public. We saw it with net neutrality, and we're seeing it with Lifeline," Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said in a statement Friday. "He comes in with his mind already made up, ignoring the process he is supposed to take to revisit rules and programs. This is not what Congress intended, and the court is right to overturn the FCC's misguided and unsupported order."

Further Reading

Broadband access in tribal areas is worse than the US as a whole, and tribal access is likely even worse than previously thought because FCC data overstates deployment, according to a September 2018 report by the US Government Accountability Office.

Separately from his tribal Lifeline plan, Pai has proposed kicking resellers out of the Lifeline program nationwide, not just in tribal areas. This would greatly limit poor people's choices, as more than 70 percent of wireless phone users who rely on Lifeline subsidies buy their plans from resellers.

But even Pai's usual supporters criticized that proposal, and Friday's court ruling could make it harder for Pai to kick resellers out of Lifeline entirely.

Did I miss something? He court said the FCC needs to hold a new rule making session. Why would this go to the Supreme Court?

Glad to see the court make this decision. I hope Pai doesn't sneak in something that's only slightly less shitty.

The decision that the FCC has to hold a new session can be appealed. Probably a pretty low likelihood that the Supremes will take it though. There don't appear to be any fundamental conflicts in this case, nor does it touch on any Constitutional issues unless recent appointments to the Court decide that douchebaggery by Federal appointees requires Constitutionally protection.

Did I miss something? He court said the FCC needs to hold a new rule making session. Why would this go to the Supreme Court?

Glad to see the court make this decision. I hope Pai doesn't sneak in something that's only slightly less shitty.

The decision that the FCC has to hold a new session can be appealed. Probably a pretty low likelihood that the Supremes will take it though. There don't appear to be any fundamental conflicts in this case, nor does it touch on any Constitutional issues unless recent appointments to the Court decide that douchebaggery by Federal appointees requires Constitutionally protection.

How many Ajit decisions are going to end up overturned because in his greed to speed along changes to help ISP balance sheets it turns out he completely ignored FCC processes?

Let's hope for most of them. Was "it will spur more broadband investment" an official justification of repealing the Net Neutrality rules? I know he's said it more than once, but I'm curious if that's officially in writing somewhere, and I can't recall from what I've read.

If so, maybe this decision bodes well for the various Net Neutrality lawsuits.

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the recipients and costs tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem. At the very least, it is not financially sustainable.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. Why can't we make a plan that eliminates the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands?

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the number of recipients, and cost to the commonwealth, tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem: at the very least, it is not financially sustainable in the long run.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. Why can't we make a plan that eliminates the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands?

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the number of recipients, and cost to the commonwealth, tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem: at the very least, it is not financially sustainable in the long run.

As a technologist, I can't wait to replace your job with a robot, thereby putting you in a position to need help from a social program, you and your entire town. Capitalism demands it.

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the recipients and costs tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem. At the very least, it is not financially sustainable.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. Why can't we make a plan that eliminates the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands?

Because fuck the poor.

Especially those that live some distance from other infrastructure and/or low population density areas, where providing coverage is unlikely to ever be profitable even if those customers used their phones a lot.

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the recipients and costs tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem. At the very least, it is not financially sustainable.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. Why can't we make a plan that eliminates the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands?

”Your honor, you have to understand, the chairman was only thinking of the American people in taking this action,” the FCC lawyer said. “The chairman has a compelling, nay, overwhelming desire to consume the flesh of innocent infants. In getting rid of these subsidies, the chairman was only trying to isolate the disenfranchised, to make them more susceptible to predation. If the Court overrules this studied and well-reasoned decision, the chairman will have to expand his hunting grounds to include actual people that matter.”

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the number of recipients, and cost to the commonwealth, tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem: at the very least, it is not financially sustainable in the long run.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. What I would like to see is dignity for all: why can't we make a plan that eliminates or at least minimizes the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands? How about aggressively investing in education for the next generation?

Considering the increasing concentration of wealth in the ultra-wealthy over the past few years, and the ever-present push of technology obviating what used to be good paying lower skill jobs, I'd expect the subsidies to increase, not decrease. At least if you want some semblance of equality of opportunities.

And mind you, some folks consider "investing in education" as just another subsidy.

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the number of recipients, and cost to the commonwealth, tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem: at the very least, it is not financially sustainable in the long run.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. What I would like to see is dignity for all: why can't we make a plan that eliminates or at least minimizes the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands? How about aggressively investing in education for the next generation?

Because that would mean the creation of meaningful legislation and investment stimulation that benefits the tribal lands. Corporations would also need to be convinced to invest in infrastructure and development, as well as long-term continuity. There is not a great track record of this happening, thus the need for subsidies to assist those that need it.

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the number of recipients, and cost to the commonwealth, tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem. At the very least, it is not financially sustainable.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. Why can't we make a plan that eliminates the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands?

There is a reason the 'consumers' (quick aside: could you have gone with something less patronizing to Native American tribal citizens here?) on tribal lands are low income: by and large, that is not the land those tribal citizens wanted. It isn't where they wanted to be, nor are they doing what they wanted to do before the government exploited and destroyed their territories and way of life. Without even engaging on the high-level subject of the role of subsidies in society, I feel pretty safe in saying the US can never come close to righting all of the wrongs done towards Native Americans by the government, by and large with full support by the American public of its time. Which makes Pai deciding to find a new and unique way to shit on them all the more reprehensible. The American public of our time should do what we can to prevent our government from perpetuating the disrespect, however we can.

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the recipients and costs tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem. At the very least, it is not financially sustainable.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. Why can't we make a plan that eliminates the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands?

Because fuck the poor.

Especially those that live some distance from other infrastructure and/or low population density areas, where providing coverage is unlikely to ever be profitable even if those customers used their phones a lot.

New York: "Hey Verizon, when we gave you permission and tax breaks to roll out FiOS, you promised to the condition of 100% fiber coverage by 2014. It's 2017 now, and you've been using loopholes to avoid deploying to the poorer 49%. Fix this."Verizon: "Lol. What are you gonna do about it? Btw, give me a few billion more and I promise I'll deploy it this time."

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the number of recipients, and cost to the commonwealth, tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem: at the very least, it is not financially sustainable in the long run.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. What I would like to see is dignity for all: why can't we make a plan that eliminates or at least minimizes the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands? How about aggressively investing in education for the next generation?

Are you ready to pay the significant (trillions) of reparations needed to account for the stolen land and lives of native peoples?

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the number of recipients, and cost to the commonwealth, tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem: at the very least, it is not financially sustainable in the long run.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. What I would like to see is dignity for all: why can't we make a plan that eliminates or at least minimizes the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands? How about aggressively investing in education for the next generation?

Yes, we had that! Throughout the 1950s and into the 1980s, some of the most prosperous times in American history, the marginal tax rate on the wealthy and business was as high as 92%!

It seems the right wing ideal is for every part of the US to become one massive suburbia, with strip malls and Burger Kings and nail salons, and for those that can't do that, to hell with them. The fact is that this is neither possible nor desirable. I have lived in some areas where that will never be possible, such as WV, and currently live in AZ, another place where such "development" will never take place in a majority of the area. So, what is the conservative solution? Force everyone in those areas to move to more urbanized areas and abandon those other areas?

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the recipients and costs tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem. At the very least, it is not financially sustainable.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. Why can't we make a plan that eliminates the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands?

Because fuck the poor.

Absolutely not. Because we should be working hard to eliminate poverty .. especially the versions of it, such as we find in tribal lands, that tend recycle from one generation to the next.

Or maybe people like you just feel good helping the poor stay poor forever, so that you can continue to feel good about your "good deeds" subsidizing the poor?

You're talking about something that has nothing at all to do with the situation. Your initial post went ninety degrees off topic, and you ran with it.

The FCC can't do anything about the situation you describe. Rightly or wrongly, that's not part of the equation here. The FCC's original decision increased the burden of costs to those on tribal lands to access the Internet, making their situation, for the most part, much worse. It was an arbitrary and capricious decision, negatively impacting the very thing the FCC is supposed to regulate, benefiting the ISP's to the detriment of the customer. This decision, long though it took, was a foregone conclusion.

That's the total scope of the situation. The rest of your post was not within that scope and not something that can be done by the FCC, nor be addressed in a manner you seem to think will help it. Perhaps if you understood the situation on most tribal lands, Casinos notwithstanding, you'd have a clearer picture of what the issues are, and how to address them. Taking away subsidies isn't the way to do it.

Not disagreeing with the court decision here: in context, I believe the ruling is 100% appropriate..

Nevertheless, as a general rule, I do not like any regime that depends, for all practical purposes, on eternal subsidies. Subsidies have a place in social policy, but they must, by definition, have a limited temporary scope. As currently implemented, the problem with subsidies, and with most social social programs, is that once enacted, they tend to go on forever, with no end in view. And the recipients and costs tend to skyrocket with time also. If I remember correctly, some 30-something % of the American population now depend on some kind of social assistance or the other. This is a problem. At the very least, it is not financially sustainable.

As an ideal, what I would like to see is not a society where there is a perpetual class of low-income consumers living on Tribal lands, receiving patronizing subsidies, as has historically been the case. Why can't we make a plan that eliminates the need for such subsidies, by creating high income consumers on tribal lands?

Because fuck the poor.

Absolutely not. Because we should be working hard to eliminate poverty .. especially the versions of it, such as we find in tribal lands, that tend recycle from one generation to the next.

Or maybe people like you just feel good helping the poor stay poor forever, so that you can continue to feel good about your "good deeds" subsidizing the poor?

You are seriously cart before the horse. Poverty exists today. When poverty no longer exists then such subsidies will not be necessary and we can discuss phasing them out. If you reduce the amount of poverty then less people will be eligible for said subsidies. Want there to be less subsidies? Implement policies to reduce poverty. Problem solved.